So what you're basically saying (and I don't necessarily disagree) is that AMD is out of the high end CPU game and Intel can just cruise... If true it would be very bad news for every high end enthusiast and poweruser.
of course Intel can push back IVB if they think BD is not a threat. keep selling those SNBs as it buys them even more time to develop their next product after IVB. (Haswell?)
Another punk bench...
The more he post, the more IPC increase...:biggrin:
I was saying that in regard to the possible delay of IVB.So what you're basically saying (and I don't necessarily disagree) is that AMD is out of the high end CPU game and Intel can just cruise... If true it would be very bad news for every high end enthusiast and poweruser.
I was saying that in regard to the possible delay of IVB.
This happens every single time there is a lack of competition. Corporations are a collective, and those individuals that make up the collective get lazy when they are not challenged, human nature.So what you're basically saying (and I don't necessarily disagree) is that AMD is out of the high end CPU game and Intel can just cruise... If true it would be very bad news for every high end enthusiast and poweruser.
This happens every single time there is a lack of competition. Corporations are a collective, and those individuals that make up the collective get lazy when they are not challenged, human nature.
Anyway, I'm sticking to my original prediction that Bulldozer will ship late Q4-2011, real availability late January 2012.
I was saying that in regard to the possible delay of IVB.
Yes, and I believe you're absolutely correct. Any monopoly will fail to innovate in the absence of any competition in a given market segment.
I will eat my damn shoe if that's true.
I would like to add a caveat here...the caveat being that your statement is correct provided the potential TAM itself is not saturated.
Once the TAM has been saturated, sales will drop off as no one needs a new unit - at any price - of the same old tired and old tech.
Intel is sort of in a saturated TAM situation. With or without AMD, if Intel does not innovate to obsolete last year's CPU's then its TAM for upgrades and replacements for next year and the year after will crater.
I'm not talking marketshare, just TAM.
And I think this phenomenon is new to mankind because prior to this generation we did not have the globalization of trade and commerce that we have now, which makes the TAM available upfront nearly all at once.
AT&T and RCA were monopolies but the TAM was restricted to western nations and only the wealthy ones at that, the TAM itself was going to continue to grow though as more and more nations came to be wealthy enough to buy their products even if they were 10yrs old outdated relics.
Intel and the desktop PC is not quite in that same situation. The TAM is already globalized. Intel can't look to tap more countries to expand the TAM. So they really have no choice but to innovate and compete with themselves, unless they want to become a really small company with monopoly high margins, which their shareholders would penalize considerably.
Just to be sure, TAM is total addressable market? I had to look that up.
You're saying that the TAM is globalized and that without new and improved products Intel can't sit on their duff because everyone will already have the latest and greatest. But isn't that false? I'm sure there are tons of potential customers who are running old pentiums (or sadly, just about anything AMD) where stepping up to Sandy Bridge or even Clarksdale would be a huge improvement. No doubt I'm wrong as I'm missing some business concept or whatnot.
Anyways, I hope Intel doesn't sit on their duffs because processors will practically be guaranteed to be better (even if only marginally) than current offerings. Not to mention much less likely chances of delays.
Honestly, when I had read about another potential AMD delay my response was a mix of "not again" and rageguy. Although, looking at the link it seems like the delay is for the desktop line. Am I reading it right in that the opterons will still be released in September? And if so, will we be able to glean anything meaningful about the desktop version from the server release?
I'm not talking about this "oh noes, IB is delayed 3 months, end of the world!" stuff, this really is small stuff in the scheme of a 4yr development cycle.
Sure, but Intel would probably go a bit easy on itself in terms of degree of performance jump if AMD was to completely fumble BD. In fact, these Intel delays could be as much about delaying costs than any sort of process and yield issues. I'd even say the cost delays are the more likely reason. Also you'd see a bit of an overall price hike including a larger performance chasm between their performance grade and expensive enthusiast grade cpus.
Then there is the antitrust issue, Intel would actually have to help ARM cpus find their way into roughly 10-20% of desktops.
Another delay? Perhaps AMD's board of directors saw that BD was uncompetitive and knew it would be delayed for almost 1 year after SB launched. Perhaps, they then pressured Dirk to shift into mobile / tablet space instead where AMD would have a better shot at making $. Perhaps the reason it took 7 months to find a CEO is because the candidates before Rory Read realized the position they would be in?
Or perhaps BD is 50% faster than 2500k and AMD is stock piling 10 million chips just to meet demand in the first 3 weeks of launch, Apple style.
It would seem that there are three separate CPU markets developing: The low end where Intel faces off against ARM, the mid range where it has competition from AMD, and the high end where it's an effective monopoly.
If I'm reading this correctly:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/di...opment_Bulldozer_Samples_Due_in_2009_AMD.html
BD was supposed to debut Q1 '09. If we're seeing a push back to Q1 '12, it would mean that the delay has created a 7 year development cycle for that CPU. That's a bit too long IMHO as you can't hope to catch up with the competitor's 4 year cycle.
No you got it right but you need to realize that of course there will be a decay to the TAM in that the things you cited, as well as a few others that I can think of, will take a few years to peter out.
It won't be binary, that goes without saying.
But right now Intel is doing R&D for the year 2020. Regardless whether or not Intel has 80% marketshare or 100% marketshare, the TAM for 2020 is going to depend largely on upgrades and people wanting to make upgrades to their Intel cpu's they bought in 2013 or earlier.
If Intel slows down the timeline for the R&D between now and 2020 they will only undermine their own TAM come 2020. Of course they aren't stupid enough to do this and they've said as much on a few occasions that they must innovate to compete with themselves (the Intel of 2020 is competing with the Intel that was in 2012) otherwise there simply is no market to sell CPU's to come 2020.
I'm not talking about this "oh noes, IB is delayed 3 months, end of the world!" stuff, this really is small stuff in the scheme of a 4yr development cycle.
So since Intel is competing with itself it cannot stagnate. But they can be less ambitious, without serious competition, right? If AMD comes out of left field and blows away all Intel's current offerings with Bulldozer, would that light a fire under Intel and push them to produce something more than if the status quo continues? Or is Intel already giving it their all?
Using a past example, was Core 2 a result of Intel trying to compete with Athlon or would it have been developed regardless of what AMD had on the market?
Lastly, I want Bulldozer out nowwwwww :'(
Such things are dynamic. However, it does give some sense to Dirk Meyer being fired. It was not a clever statement to make, when AMD didn't deliever in 2009.If I'm reading this correctly:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/di...opment_Bulldozer_Samples_Due_in_2009_AMD.html
BD was supposed to debut Q1 '09. If we're seeing a push back to Q1 '12, it would mean that the delay has created a 7 year development cycle for that CPU. That's a bit too long IMHO as you can't hope to catch up with the competitor's 4 year cycle.
Why is it always a front-end loader and never an actual Bulldozer with these graphics?
Is this more to your liking? It even has extra protection for the user. People can add their own text to it as they see fit.